This is from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's freely distributed book of eight dharma talks organized around the teaching of not-self
"Selves and Not-Self"he explains the buddha's perspective on questions of the nature of reality, sorry about the formatting
The first point is that the Buddha’s teaching was strategic, aimed at leading to
a specific goal: total freedom in the minds of his listeners. The second point is
that, as part of this larger strategy, the Buddha had strategic reasons for putting
questions of the existence or non-existence of the self aside.
Part of his teaching strategy was to divide questions into four types, based on
how they should be best approached for the purpose of putting an end to
suffering and stress [§9]. The first type includes those that deserve a categorical
answer: in other words, a straight “yes” or “no,” “this” or “that,” with no
exceptions. The second type includes questions that deserve an analytical answer,
in which the Buddha would reanalyze the question before answering it. The third
type includes questions that deserve a counter-question. In other words, he
would question the questioner before answering the original question. And the
fourth type includes questions that deserve to be put aside as useless—or even
harmful—in the quest to put an end to suffering. And, as I said, the questions, “Is
there a self? Is there no self?” are ones he put aside.
Here’s the passage where he explains why:
“Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on
arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of
friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was
sitting there he asked the Blessed One, ‘Now then, master Gotama, is
there a self?’ When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. ‘Then is there
no self?’ The second time the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta
the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
“Then not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Venerable
finanda said to the Blessed One, ‘Why, Lord, did the Blessed One not
answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?’”
And here’s the Buddha’s response: “finanda, if I, being asked by
Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self were to answer that there is a
self, that would be conforming with those brahmans and contemplatives
who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal,
unchanging soul]. If I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is
no self were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming
with those brahmans and contemplatives who are exponents of
annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of the self]. If I,
being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self were to answer
that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge
that all phenomena are not-self?”
And Venerable finanda said, “No, Lord.”
Then the Buddha said, “And if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the
wanderer if there is no self, were to answer that there is no self, the
bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the
self that I used to have now not exist?’” — SN 44:10
here is another passage
(...) it’s useful to look at the Buddha’s approach to teaching—
and to questions—in general. Once he was walking through a forest with a
group of monks. He stooped down to pick up a handful of leaves and told the
monks that the leaves in his hand were like the teachings he had given. As for
the leaves in the forest, they were like the knowledge he had gained in his
awakening. The leaves in his hand covered just two issues: how suffering is
caused and how it can be ended [§1].
After his awakening, the Buddha could have talked about anything at all, but
he chose to talk on just these two topics. To understand his teachings, we have to
understand not only what he said about suffering and its end, but also why these
topics were of utmost importance.
The purpose of his teachings was to help people find true happiness.
and another
The Buddha understood that the issues of our life are defined by our
questions. A question gives a context to the knowledge contained in its answer—
a sense of where that knowledge fits and what it’s good for. Some questions are
skillful in that they provide a useful context for putting an end to suffering,
whereas others are not. Once, one of the Buddha’s monks came to see him and
asked him a list of ten questions, the major philosophical questions of his time.
Some of the questions concerned the nature of the world, whether it was eternal
or not, finite or not; others concerned the nature and existence of the self. The
Buddha refused to answer any of them, and he explained the reason for his
refusal. He said it was as if a man had been shot by an arrow and was taken to a
doctor, and before the doctor could take the arrow out, the man would insist
that he find out first who had shot the arrow, who had made the arrow, what
the arrow was made of, what kind of wood, what kind of feathers. As the
Buddha said, if the doctor tried to answer all of those questions, the man would
die first. The first order of business would be to take the arrow out [§3]. If the
person still wanted to know the answer to those questions, he could ask
afterwards.
the point is, that type of question doesn't lead to the end of suffering, and if such questions do have any value, their value isn't nearly as great as those questions which do lead to the end of suffering
to answer your question directly, that type of question doesn't help meditation practice, and it likely could hinder such practice by presenting numerous "red herrings"
if you find yourself addicted to thinking about stuff and not practicing (as i do) then you can promise yourself to look at these questions after ending suffering, that usually helps me.
